{"id":327,"date":"2012-06-14T18:11:37","date_gmt":"2012-06-14T18:11:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/?p=327"},"modified":"2015-02-05T15:08:40","modified_gmt":"2015-02-05T23:08:40","slug":"tamiyo-and-the-extra-card-of-azkaban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/knowledgepool\/2012\/06\/14\/tamiyo-and-the-extra-card-of-azkaban\/","title":{"rendered":"Tamiyo and the Extra Card of Azkaban"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>At a PTQ Antoine\u00a0asks his opponent: “How many creatures do you control tapped?” <\/span><\/p>\n

Neil answers “Four” and Antoine activates Tamiyo, the Moon Sage<\/a>‘s second activated ability targeting Neil.<\/span><\/p>\n

Antoine resolves Tamiyo’s ability drawing four cards, and after Antoine puts the 4th card in his hand they both notice a tapped Birthing Pod<\/a> counted as a creature, and call for a judge. <\/span><\/p>\n

After investigating we determine no ill intent on any side.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n


\nAre there any infractions?<\/span><\/p>\n

What would be the penalties and fixes associated with such infractions? <\/span><\/p>\n

[expand title=”View Answer”]<\/p>\n

Yes! It is Player Communication Violation! \\o\/<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

=> Why is it PCV?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Magic Infraction Procedure Guide (MIPG) defines PCV as an infraction consisting in a\u00a0player violating the Player Communication policy. If we check chapter 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules (MTR) we will find what is covered under Player Communication. And that’s it, it is only PCV when a player violates what MTR 4.1 says<\/strong>, and other problems such as language miscommunications or problems with shortcuts are not PCV.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is a problem with misrepresenting Derived Information. Note the difference between “Is this tapped?” => Free Information; and “How many tapped creatures do you control?” => Derived Information.<\/span><\/p>\n

The physical status of a card is Free Information, but the number of any type of objects present in any game zone is Derived\u00a0Information. This makes this scenario a matter of misrepresenting Derived Information, so we would issue Neil a Warning for PCV.<\/span><\/p>\n

=> Any other infractions?<\/strong>
\nThere is no Failure to Maintain Game State infraction for Antoine; PCV is a Tournament Error, and FtMGS is only issued when another player commits a Game Play Error.<\/span><\/p>\n

But poor Antoine! He has a card in hand he was not entitled to draw. Is he getting a Game Loss for Drawing Extra Cards (DEC)?
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

It is true Antoine drew an extra card, but the MIPG defines DEC as (emphasis mine):\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

“A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Player Communication Violation had been committed<\/strong>, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.”<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

There is a prior Player Communication Violation, so the Drawing Extra Cards infraction does not apply here at all, Antoine does not get any penalty.<\/span><\/p>\n

=> How do we fix this?<\/strong>
\nNow the backup! Our solution would be rewinding to the point of the mistake, that is when Neil commits the PCV stating he controls 4 tapped creatures. We go back before Tamiyo’s ability being activated (we need to correct the loyalty counters on Tamiyo), so Antoine would have priority, and we return 4 cards at random from Antoine’s hand to the top of the deck in random and unknown order to both players. We think there is a lot of disruption in letting Antoine keep one extra card, and not much has happened since the mistake happened, so we would backup in this situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This is not as simple as it looked at first, let’s clarify some misconceptions:<\/span><\/p>\n